IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT WRIT PETITION Nos.5647-5648/2019 (LA-KIADB) Between:
1. Sri. Narayanappa S/o late Narasappa Aged about 73 years R/at No.102/A, 44th Cross Near B-One 4th Block Rajajinagar Bengaluru – 560 010 2. Sri. Govindhappa @ Govindhaiah S/o late Kumbaiah Aged about 68 years R/at Thimmarajanahalli Village Nelahal Post, Bellavi Hobli Tumkur Taluk/Dist – 572 128 ... Petitioners (By Sri. M.E.Nijalingappa, Advocate) And 1. The State of Karnataka By its Secretary Department of Commerce and Industries Vidhana Soudha Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board By its Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member Khanija Bhavan, 4th & 5th Floor Race Course Road Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer NIMZ Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board I Floor, Maruthi Tower Near SIT Main Gate Tumkar – 572 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. B.J.Eswarappa, AGA for R1 Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, Advocate for R2 & R3) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the general award dated 07.10.2013 passed by R-3 in respect of Sy.No.91/P measuring 4 acres 24 guntas, situated at Kempanadodderi Village, Kora Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, Tumkur District of petitioners are concerned, which is produced at Annexure-C and etc.
These Writ Petitions are coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The short grievance of the petitioners is against treatment of acquisition of their land by the general award as contradistinguished from the acquisition by agreement in terms of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘the KIAD Act’ for brevity). The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in identical matters, this Court has granted relief to ample number of land losers and therefore, the same should be extended to the petitioners herein as well.
2. Learned panel counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, he adds that if there are any title disputes concerning the subject land, the judgment which the petitioners want to rely upon in support of their case could not come to their aid. There is some force in this submission.
3. In view of the above, these writ petitions succeed in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned General Award dated 07.10.2013 at Annexure-C to the extent if comprises the petitioners’ land, only for the limited purpose of re-determining and paying the compensation by treating the acquisition as having been made with agreement in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, subject to the observations made above, as to title disputes, if any.
4. It is needless to mention that the title vested in the respondent-KIADB by virtue of the award made in the acquisition proceedings would otherwise stand unimpeached.
Sd/- JUDGE RB